Recommended Posts

What are the coordinates of the place called NHM that existed in 600 B.C.?

There are no documented misses.

2 Ne. 19:1 (c. 559-545 B.C.) quotes nearly verbatim from Is. 9:1 of the 1611 KJV, including 5 words added by the KJV (italicized). The bigger issue is that Joseph qualified the "sea" as the Red Sea, which a) Jesus also quoted Isaiah in Mt. 4:14-15, b) "Red Sea" here is not in any source MSS, c) the Red Sea is 250 miles away to the southwest.

Also do you think that a European Map made its way into the hands of a poor farmer boy from upstate New York within 10 years of its first publication in Europe?

I believe it was published in the late XVIII, not 1815, but there is no copy known to have been in USmerica any time before the translation of the Book of Mormon.

The discovery of NHM in Saudi Arabia along the path that Lehi would of taken was a recent discovery as far as I know, I could be wrong and if I am please feel free to present the evidence.

Dating Nahom

Now that we can show the extreme rarity of the NHM name in Arabia [not Saudi Arabia] and how aptly it fits all the elements of Nephi's account, we will examine the evidence allowing us to trace the history of the name in Yemen. We have already mentioned an obvious method

Share this post

Link to post

Let me respond to all of these with this: I was parroting what has already been stated in the Video itself. Daniel Peterson would have to expand the details.

It depends on what one considers to be "known".

It was not "known" in Europe if one means that many people had heard of it and would associate it with a funerals in general and with a specific burial ground (which was not indicated on the map, nor in the text of the book of which this map was a part). It may have been known in Denmark, whose king (as I recall), commissioned the expedition that discovered it, but it was not widely known there, either. The book was obscure, and no known copy was in USmerica, let alone in New York, in the early XIX.

To claim, as antis do, that Joseph could have known about NHM/Nahom/Nehum in 1829 should require that they produce some sort of evidence that it was possible, even remotely. None has done so yet, but they continue to make the vacuous charge and then expect us to prove a negative.

As a counterclaim, we can easily demonstrate than many antis of the age used Lehi's Arabian trek as evidence of a fraud, since they were convinced that there was no NHM/Nahom, and certainly no "Bountiful". The only thing, they claimed, in which Arabia could be considered to have an "abundance" was sand. But the Ashton's and others have shown that there are at least two places (in one region) that could qualify as "Bountiful", and that this region is the only one, and further, that this region is in exactly the place Nephi said it was. Similar evidence supports the Valley/River of Laman/Lemuel. It's there, for all to see, but it was unknown in 1827~9.

That an XVIII Danish cartographer created a map with the toponym "Nahom" on it is scant, scant to the point of its being vanishingly small, evidence of Joseph's being able to have seen it.

Lehi

I think you are referring to the 1763 Carsten Niebuhr map which labels an area "Nehhm" (NHHM) that generally corresponds to the present location of the Nihm tribe today, about 25 miles north of Sana'a Yemen.

See: Christensen, Ensign, Aug. 1978, p.73

We are still off by about 2,363 years, as we need a NHM location in 600 B.C.

Second CFR, what is the evidence that a place called NHM existed in 600 B.C. and was located on Lehi's route?

Is this the Saudi Arbia NHM though?

Also do you think that a European Map made its way into the hands of a poor farmer boy from upstate New York within 10 years of its first publication in Europe?

The discovery of NHM in Saudi Arabia along the path that Lehi would of taken was a recent discovery as far as I know, I could be wrong and if I am please feel free to present the evidence.

Share this post

Link to post

I have stated no such thing (again, you put words into my mouth). Do not conflate things you think about me with what I have actually said or done. I have just pointed out where your hypothesis falls apart. Fulfill my CFR or concede the point.

you didn't say it, you assumed it. and, BTW, you never said where you think my "hypothesis falls apart". all you've been doing here is playing these silly games of not getting what I'm explaining (and apparently everyone else got already) and asking for silly CFRs of assumptions you were making... assumptions.

That is one conclusion--easily reached by the evidence with minimal assumptions. Another is that assumptions made become the vision of an individual grasping at straws to fulfill a preconceived bias. As Sherlock Holmes is credited with saying; "Individuals tend to bend facts to fit a hypothesis, rather than construct hypothesis to fit facts."

There's nothing wrong with making assumptions by themselves, Vex. The problem, the only, problem here is that you claim one explanation is more plausible than another one and I've given reasons why mine is better. I see no substance whatsoever in your posts and no sense of doing anything but play silly games. If the next post of yours doesn't contain something worthy of me spending time answering it I'll just have to stop responding to you.

Share this post

Link to post

Your statement was "Sure but then don't act as if it was the reasonable thing to think... it isn't. Plus I don't even think this is the case. If you seriously ask a mormon of medium education what he thinks the more likely and 'objective' explanation is for such type of events I don't think he'll give the "spiritual explanation" answer..

Critical thinking would require that I evaluate these things on an individual basis and "Angels delivering books" is not in the same catagory as magic show tricks and when all available evidence is considered I don't find it unreasonable at all.

Again, I'm NOT saying believing in super-natural or miraculous explanations is unreasonable at all. The point is that it is wrong to say that those types of explanations are the most reasonable to conclude. You can believe them but still know they aren't the most reasonable things to believe; they are a matter of faith and that's fine.

Share this post

Link to post

What's the evidence that this approx. location was called NHM in 600 B.C.?

Reputable, non-LDS scholars report that the Nihm tribe inhabited the region (within a few dozen miles of their current location) well into pre-Islamic times. Two such are Paul Dresch (see his unpublished 1986 paper, "Tribalism", University of Michigan; Clarendon published his 1989 book, Tribes, Government and History in Yemen) and Robert Wilson ("Al-Hamdani's Description of Hashid and Bakil", in the Institute of Archeology's 1981 volume of Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, 11:95~96), both cited in the Astons' In the Footsteps of Lehi. They push the date back to roughly the turn of the era, so we're some 2000 years closer to the Nihm of Nephi's day. The indications of a far earlier time for the Nihm in the same region are more than adequate for my purposes.

Lehi

Share this post

Link to post

you didn't say it, you assumed it. and, BTW, you never said where you think my "hypothesis falls apart". all you've been doing here is playing these silly games of not getting what I'm explaining (and apparently everyone else got already) and asking for silly CFRs of assumptions you were making... assumptions.

Okay, we can play this game too: Show me where I assumed anything. I pointed out the number of baseless assumptions you would have to make to under go your hypothesis--hence where your hypothesis falls apart. Fulfill the CFR (This is #4 now) where I have assumed one way or another. This is the hole you dug not me (by the way comparing your hypothesis to JS's history is not assumption making nor inferring validity of one over the other--it is comparative).

There's nothing wrong with making assumptions by themselves, Vex. The problem, the only, problem here is that you claim one explanation is more plausible

CFR that where I say one works better than the other--I have not said it, so don't try to pin it on me.

than another one and I've given reasons why mine is better.

No you haven't. You have essentially said; "I'll make these baseless assumptions in order to fulfill my hypothesis, thus my hypothesis is more probable than anything else offered."

I see no substance whatsoever in your posts and no sense of doing anything but play silly games. If the next post of yours doesn't contain something worthy of me spending time answering it I'll just have to stop responding to you.

I have claimed no such thing. I asked you where you could reduce the number of assumptions to undergo your hypothesis. You have yet to fulfill that obligation but instead begin emphatically stating things I have apparently done, inferred, or otherwise related during our discourse.

So fulfill the CFR (remember you declared it); concede the point, or revisit your hypothesis to reduce your assumptions.

For sake of argument let's assume JS hypothesis is accurate; here are the assumptions one must make:

Man is an eternal being and an offspring of God

God is a loving heavenly father (and hence will not lie)

God reveals truth through mortal men called prophets

a prophet in 19th century received revelation concerning a people here and by association their travels

4 or 5 assumptions (depending how you count it) necessary to fulfill that hypothesis.

So you now have 1 outstanding CFR unanswered and a new CFR where you assert something I have done which I have not.

Share this post

Link to post

Okay, we can play this game too: Show me where I assumed anything. I pointed out the number of baseless assumptions you would have to make to under go your hypothesis--hence where your hypothesis falls apart. Fulfill the CFR (This is #4 now) where I have assumed one way or another. This is the hole you dug not me (by the way comparing your hypothesis to JS's history is not assumption making nor inferring validity of one over the other--it is comparative).

CFR that where I say one works better than the other--I have not said it, so don't try to pin it on me. No you haven't. You have essentially said; "I'll make these baseless assumptions in order to fulfill my hypothesis, thus my hypothesis is more probable than anything else offered." I have claimed no such thing. I asked you where you could reduce the number of assumptions to undergo your hypothesis. You have yet to fulfill that obligation but instead begin emphatically stating things I have apparently done, inferred, or otherwise related during our discourse.

So fulfill the CFR (remember you declared it); concede the point, or revisit your hypothesis to reduce your assumptions.

For sake of argument let's assume JS hypothesis is accurate; here are the assumptions one must make:

Man is an eternal being and an offspring of God

God is a loving heavenly father (and hence will not lie)

God reveals truth through mortal men called prophets

a prophet in 19th century received revelation concerning a people here and by association their travels

4 or 5 assumptions (depending how you count it) necessary to fulfill that hypothesis.

So you now have 1 outstanding CFR unanswered and a new CFR where you assert something I have done which I have not.

See my response where you decided to place me on ignore. I was able to reduce this list of assumptions down to 4 or 5 depending on how you count the first one. Thus, as it stands we have your hypothesis which states no less than 6 (so far) assumptions that have as much efficacy as the 4 or 5 assumptions which I have listed.

Share this post

Link to post

Reputable, non-LDS scholars report that the Nihm tribe inhabited the region (within a few dozen miles of their current location) well into pre-Islamic times. Two such are Paul Dresch (see his unpublished 1986 paper, "Tribalism", University of Michigan; Clarendon published his 1989 book, Tribes, Government and History in Yemen) and Robert Wilson ("Al-Hamdani's Description of Hashid and Bakil", in the Institute of Archeology's 1981 volume of Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, 11:95~96), both cited in the Astons' In the Footsteps of Lehi. They push the date back to roughly the turn of the era, so we're some 2000 years closer to the Nihm of Nephi's day. The indications of a far earlier time for the Nihm in the same region are more than adequate for my purposes.

Lehi

The Aston's get to 100 A.D. by mentioning that al-Hamdani, an historian who died in 945 A.D., referenced the Bakil tribe around 100 A.D. In a separate list he identifies the Nihm as part of the Bakil federation, but without any dating.

The Astons admit their speculation: "although he does not name the Bakil tribes individually for the earlier period, the clear inference is that Nihm was one of them."

This isn't evidence but speculation. Even if we accept 100 A.D., we are still 700 years off.

Besides, we're not looking for the name of a tribe, we're looking for the name of a place.

Share this post

Link to post

we're not looking for the name of a tribe, we're looking for the name of a place.

The name of the tribe is the name of the place. We are USmericans and the place we live is USmerica. My Jacquie was a Canadian and she lived in Canada. I served the French in France, and my brother served Brazilians in Brazil. The English live in England, the Scots in Scotland. The Nihms lived in NHM. How is this even a question?

Speculation is based on evidence. Your denying that the Nihm were part of the Bakil in ad 50~100 is no less speculation, and based on less evidence than the Astons'. Just because Wilson's citation does not include a specific date for the Nihm does not mean they were not among the Bakil in the I.

Even if we accept 100 A.D., we are still 700 years off.

That's a lot less than the 2300 years you were brandishing a few posts back. Your sword is less intimidating than you imagine it to be.

When we do find the information that shows the Nihm to have lived in modern-day Yemen in 600 bc, what will you say about all those hits that just keep on comin', your bluster notwithstanding?

Share this post

Link to post

Apparently several CFR's for your assumptions have been requested. Please respond.

Seems like we are going to have to review what an assumption is. Here we go...

An assumption is something one takes to be the case as a premise, stated or unstated, so as to support something else. If I say, "I believe JS translated the golden plates through the power of God" (let's call it statement A) it can be said that I'm assuming several things from which I will enumerate a few:

1. Such a thing as a God exists.

2. The belief that JS translated the plates is taken to be true.

3. Such plates existed (or exist).

4. JS had some type of access to the power of God.

5. God has some type of power.

and on and on. All those beliefs must be accepted if one is questioned. Example: if we ask someone who sincerely stated A, "do you think there is a God?" it is clear that he should answer "Yes" since the existence of God is necessary in order to say A and believe it.

It's just plain silly to ask me for a CFR on assumptions believers HAVE to make in order to take a miraculous explanation over a more naturalistic one. Hestia never claimed I existed but one can safely assume he thinks I exist so as to direct a post to me and it would be rather stupid to ask for a CFR to someone who happened to say Hestia believes I exist.

Share this post

Link to post

The name of the tribe is the name of the place. We are USmericans and the place we live is USmerica. My Jacquie was a Canadian and she lived in Canada. I served the French in France, and my brother served Brazilians in Brazil. The English live in England, the Scots in Scotland. The Nihms lived in NHM. How is this even a question?

Lehi

I don't see the connection in comparing nationalities to tribal names. So I understand your argument, every tribal name also corresponds to the name of their geographic location?

If so, be prepared to provide names and locations in a follow up CFR.

Share this post

Link to post

Speculation is based on evidence. Your denying that the Nihm were part of the Bakil in ad 50~100 is no less speculation, and based on less evidence than the Astons'. Just because Wilson's citation does not include a specific date for the Nihm does not mean they were not among the Bakil in the I.

Speculation is speculation.

That's a lot less than the 2300 years you were brandishing a few posts back. Your sword is less intimidating than you imagine it to be.

I asked for evidence for a place called Nahom in 600 B.C. You still haven't provided it.

When we do find the information that shows the Nihm to have lived in modern-day Yemen in 600 bc, what will you say about all those hits that just keep on comin', your bluster notwithstanding?